Allowed

P.Nagaraj, v. State Rep.by

Madras HC26 Jun 2018WP(MD)/13357/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to facilitate temple festival donations and community participation following a peace committee resolution.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to regulate law and order and enforce peace committee resolutions for temple festival participation and donation collection.

P.Nagaraj, Vs State Rep.by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.06.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶4

W.P.(MD) No.13357 of 2018

P.Nagaraj

...Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul. ...Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to make arrangement for receiving donation (Thalaikattu Vari) from the petitioner and his community people for big prayer festival scheduled to be conducted between 26.06.2018 and 08.07.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to ensure the participation of the petitioner and his community people in the Muthalamman, Bagavathiamman, Kaliyamman and Kottaimuniyappan temple festival based on the petitioner's representations dated 06.06.2018 and 20.06.2018.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.S.Nagarajan Special Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to make arrangement for receiving donation (Thalaikattu Vari) from the petitioner and his community people for big prayer festival scheduled to be conducted between 26.06.2018 and 08.07.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to ensure the participation of the petitioner and his community people in the Muthalamman, Bagavathiamman, Kaliyamman and Kottaimuniyappan temple festival based on the petitioner's representations dated 06.06.2018 and 20.06.2018.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Pursuant to the writ petition filed before this Court,

¶16

¶17

the petitioner and other parties were called for a peace committee meeting and in the peace committee meeting conducted on 19.06.2018 and 22.06.2018, both sides resolved to have participate in the temple function and collect Thalaikattu Vari from the parties concerned and the second respondent/Tahsildar has filed the proceedings of the peace committee meeting. It is also observed that in the light of the resolution dated 23.06.2018, the petitioner agreed to get appropriate order. The resolutions passed in the peace committee meeting, produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, is taken on record.

¶18

The first and second respondents with the assistance of police shall regulate the law and order situation and the agreement just arrived at in the peace committee meeting shall be strictly enforced in letter and spirit, by honouring the sentiments of both the groups.

¶19

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar To:

¶23

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶24

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Dindigul East Taluk, Dindigul.

¶25

+1CC to Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian Advocate in SR.No.69851.

¶26

¶27

DS/RSK/SAR-1 :26.06.2018: 2P/4C

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.13357 of 2018 26.06.2018

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Nagaraj, v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Nagaraj, v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Gemini Iron and Steels Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mayan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Dcw Limited, Vs the State Tax Officer

T.Peter Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Sri Adaikalam Kathal Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

Ramaiah Vs the Tahsildar